Category: diversity

I gave birth to my daughter a couple of months ago (hence the hiatus in blogging). I received a generous amount of paid maternity leave, well over the statutory minimum, from my employer (a pregnancy charity). My husband also received six weeks of paid paternity leave from his private sector employer, which is extremely generous in the context of UK statutory provision (two weeks’ leave at statutory pay – approx £145 per week – or at 90% of salary, whichever is lower).

Throughout my pregnancy we had both been looking forward to this extended time together. Now we’re out the other end and he’s returned to work, I’m glad to say that we did enjoy this time immensely. I’d also argue that a long paternity leave provides an essential way to support mothers, fathers, and children, but I haven’t seen this discussed at length within our sector.

My experience

My birth plan went out of the window pretty quickly due to various complications, and I ended up having an emergency c-section. I was well cared for in the hospital (where I stayed for three days), but a c-section is full-on surgery and recovering women are advised to rest for six weeks, avoiding lifting anything heavier than the baby.

I also lost nearly a litre of blood, so felt very tired and couldn’t move or do much at all. Having my husband around for the full recovery period meant that I had someone to keep the household running and I could focus entirely on my recovery and looking after our daughter.

Why six weeks of paternity leave is good for the mother

These are some of the benefits I gained from my husband’s paternity leave:

Practical help with cooking, grocery shopping and cleaning, as explained above. Many women have c-sections, and those who don’t may still have recovery periods from a range of complications. Being able to fully rest is vital. We don’t have any other children, but I can also see how the partner’s presence would make a huge difference in making childcare manageable in these first weeks.

Support in building my confidence – I was able to go on short walks after about five weeks, and my husband was with me for the milestones of first bus ride, first train ride, first trip to the shops with the pram etc. By the time he returned to work I felt confident in getting around. Although I would have managed, I would definitely have felt anxious about being alone after two weeks.

Accompaniment to medical appointments – as most new parents do, we had a few concerns in the early weeks, and having company at appointments helped to provide a different perspective and someone to talk things over with. There was so much going on that at times it would have been difficult for me to remember all the details and maintain a sense of proportion about the challenges we were facing. My husband’s presence made that a lot easier.

Maintaining good mental health – I was lucky enough not to experience any of the severe mental health problems that can follow childbirth, but it is an emotionally vulnerable time. My husband’s presence meant that I had someone to talk things through with. Combined with all of the above, this definitely bolstered my resilience and helped me feel good about myself and more confident about my abilities as a mother.

What do charities generally offer in terms of paternity leave?

My cursory survey of other charities’ paternity leave policies indicated that two weeks at full pay tends to be the most generous offer (one fundraiser told me about a charity that provides four weeks at 90% pay, but this appeared to be an outlier).

I don’t think this is enough. I think it’s a shame that our sector lags behind the more enlightened parts of the private sector on this issue.

However, charities can currently be market leaders by providing two weeks of fully paid paternity leave, and additional provision would be costly, so why should they do any more?

In my view, it’s a continuation of outdated social norms that have led to an acceptance that fathers should receive so much less. There does seem to be consensus within the charity sector that mothers deserve better than statutory; many charities offer generous maternity leave packages.

There are many compelling reasons, in my view, why charities should have more generous paternity leave provision:

To benefit the wellbeing of the mother, as explained above.

To benefit the wellbeing of the father, including bonding and building confidence with the baby. Moreover, when he returns to work after an extended leave, he is likely to be more comfortable with the new routine, and a better employee as a result.

To benefit the wellbeing of the baby; extra time is more likely to lead to a calm, peaceful household which can only improve the baby’s start in life.

To benefit family cohesion overall. A household which is given plenty of time for all family members (including other children) to adjust to the new arrival surely has a better chance of maintaining strong relationships and good mental health all round. This has a host of knock-on positive effects for society, which charities should surely support.

If more fathers are as likely to take several weeks’ leave as mothers, this will reduce the likelihood of discrimination against women.

It may help us attract more men to a largely female-dominated fundraising workforce, improving our sector’s diversity.

Obviously, many mothers have partners who do not identify as male, or don’t have a partner at all. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t extend these same paternity leave rights to a nominated secondary carer.

Many fathers would love to have more time with their new children, and new mothers would benefit hugely from this vital additional support in the early weeks. I hope that those charities that can afford it will consider going significantly beyond what is normally offered to fathers.

In my last post I explored some of the career barriers experienced by face-to-face fundraisers. I argued that more attention on this group could help the sector overcome some of the difficulties it faces – particularly related to diversity, talent and negative perceptions. This post examines potential solutions, drawing on suggestions from a number of senior fundraisers who began their careers in face-to-face.

Helping face-to-face fundraisers view fundraising as a long-term career option

Many of the senior fundraisers I spoke to recognised that F2F fundraisers are frequently unaware of the opportunities available in charities – let alone the broader challenges and concerns the sector is facing. One reflected that they may not even know about jobs websites, such as Charity Job, that are familiar to the rest of us.

I heard ideas for straightforward solutions including:

Subsidised attendance at Institute of Fundraising events such as the annual F2F Conference, and Convention – a nominal fee of around £20 might be appropriate, especially given that a F2F fundraiser may need to take annual leave or unpaid leave to attend.

Subsidised IoF membership rates – again this could help to connect F2F fundraisers with peers and enthuse them about the possibilities within the broader sector.

Identifying and retaining talented face-to-face fundraisers

The turnover rate of F2F fundraisers is so high that identifying and developing talent is challenging. One individual observed that the demographic of F2F fundraisers is changing: many are school leavers without degrees, and may have been referred by the Job Centre. How can we nurture and retain the most talented?

Suggestions included:

Proactive outreach and development schemes. I spoke to some senior fundraisers who are making admirable efforts to improve internal progression at their own charities (where the face-to-face teams are in-house). It was also clear that many agencies are excellent at promoting from within, but a sector-led initiative may have more impact than relying on these individuals and teams.

Outreach efforts should not only focus on fundraising: other roles within the charity sector may be attractive and make relevant use of transferable skills. We should also offer pathways into campaigning, or roles where they are directly supporting beneficiaries. This is especially relevant to F2F fundraisers who would prefer not to be desk-based.

Addressing the problem of perception

My last blog post explored some of the perception problems that still affect F2F fundraising as a profession – both internally within charities, and in the public eye. Suggestions for improvement included:

The need for F2F fundraisers – both the individuals and the teams – to be recognised in sector awards.

There could be a role for more rigorous training and accreditation.

Charities need to be more proactive in defending F2F fundraising, although they probably need to get better at defending themselves in general. Hopefully we are seeing a move in the right direction, given the robust responses of RNLI and Dogs Trust following recent media attacks.

Working with agencies

When working with agencies, there was a feeling among those I spoke to that charities tend to keep the agencies at arm’s length. If we, as charities, are benefiting from the income and donors brought in by F2F, we need to own this relationship and the responsibilities that come with it.

Many senior fundraisers working in the sector today developed their F2F skills within these agencies, rather than charities. Closer working with agencies could therefore encourage more movement of talented individuals into charity roles.

There is obviously a tension here, as the agencies will understandably want to keep their best staff. However, closer working with the charity sector would offer more career options outside of F2F and may encourage those who may have otherwise left fundraising to consider progression.

It’s worth adding that more movement of F2F staff into non-F2F charity roles will provide more internal cheerleaders for the discipline, which can only improve the problems of perception among charity staff. This in turn could benefit the agencies by improving working relationships.

Innovation

Much of the current negative attitude within charities towards F2F appears to be based on the fact that the market is challenging and is delivering a decreasing return on investment.

However, one individual highlighted the lack of innovation in F2F fundraising, which has generally focused on a regular giving request i.e. signing up for a monthly gift. Why not explore other options, such as awareness campaigns or charity lotteries? More creative, dynamic uses of F2F could broaden fundraisers’ skills and reduce the prevalence of some of the unfair and negative attitudes. Who knows? They could even surprise and delight the public.

What next?

Exploring the question of whether F2F fundraisers face a “glass ceiling” has opened up many, many more questions and potential routes for investigation. It’s a complex and fascinating area which I hope others will also be interested in investigating .

F2F fundraisers are the public face of our profession and are representing us every single day; we really ought to make sure they feel valued and can themselves be represented throughout the charity sector.

This is the first of two posts investigating issues related to the career progression of face-to-face fundraisers. In this post, I’ll focus on identifying some of the challenges; the second post will explore potential solutions.

I began my career as a face-to-face fundraiser (in a charity in-house team in 2006-07), and it’s the hardest thing I’ve ever done work-wise. At the time I was young, idealistic, and determined to make a career for myself in charities. As I’ve written about before, however, there was no straightforward way for me to develop my fundraising career from this entry point.

I was curious to know whether other fundraisers had similar experiences and whether the situation has improved over the decade since my time as a street fundraiser. As a member of the IoF’s Expert Diversity Panel, I was also keen to explore whether helping street fundraisers to develop could be a way of addressing some of the diversity issues faced by our industry.

I discussed my thoughts with several senior fundraisers who began their careers within face-to-face fundraising (street or door-to-door, working in-house at a charity or for an external agency). There were no straightforward answers to my questions, but these conversations have helped identify some themes that the fundraising community could certainly explore further.

How did other former face-to-face fundraisers develop their careers?

Several of those I spoke to started out working for an agency, and worked their way up within the company. Some made the sideways move to a charity, but others preferred to stay agency side. One found his way into face-to-face after seeking a career change. Following that, he got a “break” into an office-based charity role thanks to an open-minded recruiter who was intrigued by his CV.

My sample is by no means scientific, but it appears that moving up the ladder may often be easier within an agency than at a charity. Otherwise an ambitious face-to-face fundraiser may be relying on meeting the right person at a job interview who is willing to give them the chance.

Face-to-face fundraising undoubtedly develops relevant skills

Everyone I spoke to was a passionate advocate for the skills and potential of their face-to-face colleagues. They agreed that the work on the “coalface” of fundraising develops skills that could kick-start a long-term fundraising career. It doesn’t teach you everything you need to know about fundraising, but it’s a great starting point.

Flow Caritas’ report in 2014 made a similar argument, setting out a strong case for investing in and supporting street fundraisers as the future of our profession. Rory White, Flow Caritas Founder and Director, wrote that [street fundraising] “can no longer be dismissed as an adjunct to the fundraising profession. It’s actually the source of some of the best and brightest young fundraisers in the sector.”

He was acknowledging a need to defend street fundraisers. Why was there a need to defend them in 2014? And is this need still there?

Barriers to progression

Everyone I spoke to agreed that face-to-face fundraisers face barriers to long-term career development within charities. These included:

Face-to-face fundraisers are looked down upon by many people within charities. “I think people see it as an undesirable job, and therefore assume only people who are unskilled or uneducated do it.”

Face-to-face fundraising as a discipline is often looked down upon – if not by other fundraisers themselves, then by other charity staff. More than one person described it to me as “the sector’s dirty secret“. There was also a general feeling that charities did not do enough to defend face-to-face fundraising when it was attacked in the press – although one respondent acknowledged that charities’ lack of self-defence is a broader problem, which is perhaps accentuated by the public nature of face-to-face.

Face-to-face fundraisers do not see charities as a viable career prospect and are likely to be unaware of the wider sector’s activities, and the opportunities within it.

Most face-to-face fundraisers are only in the job for a short amount of time, which makes identifying and developing talent a challenge.

The fundraisers I spoke to also shared examples of excellent practice in helping face-to-face fundraisers progress in their careers. However, these examples mainly appeared to be due to the admirable work of passionate individuals, and therefore, presumably, if these people move on, their good work may well leave with them. I could not find evidence of systemic charity sector initiatives to help develop face-to-face fundraisers.

Has the situation changed in recent years?

I heard a range of opinions about how attitudes towards face-to-face fundraisers, and the discipline, have changed.

There was a general feeling that face-to-face is more recognised as a career path than it used to be. The increased focus on regulation and compliance in recent years has probably helped, through making it a more professional and accountable channel.

However, many charities appear to be more sceptical about the financial viability of face-to-face. The market has shrunk, with insufficient agencies to meet demand, and ROI has decreased. Agencies operating on tight margins are also less able to invest in staff development or innovation.

I was not able to gain a broad picture of the demographics of face-to-face, but one respondent made an interesting comment. He has observed that face-to-face fundraisers were initially middle-class – often university students or recent graduates (like me) – but this has changed in recent years. Now, the people on the street or knocking on doors are often school leavers, and may have been referred by the job centre. There is undoubtedly talent within this pool of people, but there may be additional challenges involved in helping them stay within fundraising, or the broader charity sector.

Why is this a problem?

“So many ideas that come out of London-based charity offices simply fail – because they exist in a London bubble. The lack of diversity (and diversity of thought) can be overwhelming… If you’re a street fundraiser who knows what will work in Oxford Street, what will work in Skegness, and what will work in Mansfield…you’re far more likely to understand how ‘the person on the street’ thinks, rather than if you’ve only ever relied on consumer insight or creative agencies.”

We already know that there’s a diversity problem in fundraising, and that this affects our ability to do the best job possible. The fundraisers I spoke to generally agreed that more attention on face-to-face fundraisers could help the situation, although it won’t be easy as the issue links to many broader and complex challenges faced by the sector. To me, however, it appears that we’re missing opportunities to do things better.

In my next blog post I will explore potential solutions to these challenges.

It would make it difficult for anyone to take them seriously. Similarly, statements such as “I’m bad at maths” will damage your credibility. And if you have any position of authority within your organisation, those looking to you as a role model will also adopt this attitude.

We can’t ignore the gendered aspect of this problem

When considering the above, it seems to me no coincidence that fundraisers are predominantly female. If they have a degree, based on my observations it usually appears to be in an arts subject as opposed to STEM.

Moreover, I don’t think I’ve ever heard a male fundraiser state that they’re bad at maths.

There’s a potent cocktail at play here, comprising anxiety, lack of confidence, eagerness to please by participating in supposedly harmless banter, and gendered expectations. The good news is that I don’t think this is a difficult problem to overcome.

Fundraisers don’t need to know high-level maths

Luckily, you don’t have to be a maths genius to do well in fundraising. All you need is some basics. Here is a list of some maths skills / maths-related pointers that I think all fundraisers need to know:

After all, our female-dominated, often feminist-identifying workforce would rail against T-shirts like these, wouldn’t it? Let’s not perpetuate these harmful stereotypes through our own actions and attitudes.

A blog post by Vu Le arguing that funders who avoid paying overheads are perpetuating inequality and making it harder for charities to be effective.

The issues at the heart of both of these articles

There are severe challenges facing charities – particularly small charities, and particularly those serving under-represented groups:

Charities struggle with securing unrestricted income (which is crucial for funding internal functions); the smaller the charity, the more difficult this is.

Charities may lack the skillset for trust fundraising, and waste resources by taking a “scattergun” approach to applications, rather than targeting funders appropriately.

The demands of some major funders put pressure on small charities, which many feel to be excessive and may lead to structural inequality.

I acknowledge these to be real concerns. I must also acknowledge that I’m writing from a place of privilege, having only ever worked for charities with income over £5 million, all of which had well-established donor portfolios. However, I think all charities, big and small, would benefit from exploring some of the above attitudes.

Which rules do we want to play by, and be judged by?

Dan Pallotta’s seminal TED talk explains that charities are not permitted to participate in society in the same way as corporations, which hinders their ability to do good. Corporations can take risks with their money; the same behaviour in charities is often perceived as wasteful. And as far as I’m aware, corporations don’t have to deal with restricted funding in the same way that charities do.

However, if we want to play by the same rules as corporations, we need to accept the need to be judged by these rules, too.

It all comes down to fundraising

What’s the first thing a budding entrepreneur has to do, once they’ve got their groundbreaking idea? Raise funds, whether from investors or customers. We’re all familiar with Dragon’s Den. The day-to-day reality is probably not as dramatic for most entrepreneurs, but to be successful, they do have to grind away, searching for and pitching to the funders who are most likely to be interested in their product.

It’s no different for charities. They can’t exist without funding. But is the hunt for cash as deeply embedded within all charities – from tiny, volunteer-led outfits to established multi-million pound organisations? Probably not, otherwise respected commentators such as Veritus Group wouldn’t be so emphatic about the need for change. Fundraising, in many quarters, is still viewed with distaste.

We’re all competing for funds

There are thousands of charities seeking funding. They exist because there’s an important need to be met, whether that’s mentoring disadvantaged people, protecting the environment or researching cures for a rare medical condition.

Just because the mission is important, however, doesn’t mean they’ll get the funding they need. They may feel they have the right to exist but sadly, the real world doesn’t always agree. That’s why having skilled fundraisers and a culture of philanthropy is absolutely vital.

It might not be fair, but it’s the reality. The CEO of a startup company faces the same challenge. He or she might have created the best, most exciting product in the world – but without excellent sales and customer care functions, it’s unlikely to succeed.

Wishful thinking won’t get us there. We need to adapt.

nfpSynergy’s survey found that most fundraisers would prefer “shorter periods between applications, easier reporting, and to be able to submit multiple applications.”

No sh*t, Sherlock.

It also identified that many fundraisers, particularly those from smaller charities, would happily trade a large restricted grant for a smaller, unrestricted gift. This worried me for a number of reasons:

The question made no sense to me. It was not clear whether the restricted gift would be for budgeted or additional work – this is a crucial difference.

It also made no sense to ask fundraisers. Of course we all want an easier life, and unrestricted grants are generally simpler to manage, but this type of decision should not be made solely by fundraisers. It’s one for the management team.

It worried me that small charities would – in theory – give up the prospect of significant funding because they lack the internal processes or expertise to manage it.

Is there a trust issue?

In his latest article for Civil Society, nfpSynergy founder Joe Saxton suggests that “many restricted grants simply demonstrate a lack of trust in the recipient charity.”

There would be value in exploring the reasons for this perceived lack of trust. Luckily we don’t need to look far to find a clue: one of the comments on the nfpSynergy article is from a grantmaker who explains that many of their grantees fail to send them a grant report.

Securing funding comes with responsibility. We cannot expect grantmakers to make our lives easier if we don’t also meet their basic requirements.

Grantmakers are not “the other side”; they’re part of the charity sector too

Vu’s blog highlights the plight of tiny charities that struggle with the conditions imposed by grant funders. He argues for relaxed funding restrictions to give these charities a break.

We should carry this argument through to its logical conclusion. As most trust funders are also small organisations with their own charitable objectives, we need to be sympathetic to the challenges they face, and treat them with respect. This means not submitting speculative applications which we know, deep down, won’t interest them and will suck up more of their time. The commenter on the nfpSynergy article emphasises the fact that most grantmakers have very few resources and are mostly volunteer-led. Restricted funding represents a simple way of ensuring their grantees have some accountability.

I don’t deny that there are challenges and injustices within our sector. And some of the large grantmakers – which can afford paid staff – have excellent, inclusive processes and listen to their grantees. We should continue discussions where they are welcome and advocate for the charities which struggle. But we also need to accept and adapt to the reality.

What should charities do?

Get really, really good at impact measurement and reporting. This isn’t easy. But if we can show donors that their money makes a real difference, wherever it goes within the charity, it may relax the emphasis on restrictions.

Have excellent internal processes for budgeting and priority-setting. This will enable quick and wise decisions when opportunities for restricted funding arise.

Seek to fulfil your charity’s mission while also recognising the need to adapt to what funders want. Yes, the mission is important, but if you can’t sell the cause, you don’t have a charity.

I’ve hear the complaint more than once, from donors and charities alike, that the charities with the best fundraisers are the ones that get the money. Well, maybe the better question to ask is why aren’t the other charities prioritising investment in fundraising?

Simply complaining about injustice isn’t going to secure funding – nor will it give us any credibility as a sector. We need the right skills and mindset to adapt to the reality we find ourselves in. And we need more excellent fundraisers.

As the new financial year approaches, many of us will have been involved in target-setting. If you’re lucky, you’ll have had a say in the final figures. If you’re not, they’ll have been imposed with minimal discussion.

I’ve noticed a concerning tendency among some of my fellow – and mostly female – fundraisers. Online and during casual chats at conferences, I encounter negativity about targets. They’re seen as impossible, idealistic, unreachable goals. GIFs are circulated depicting variations on a theme of ostriches hiding their heads in the sand.

This, to me, points to a worrying sense of helplessness. Complaining perpetuates this negative cycle and changes nothing.

Why are targets so often unrealistic?

Many others have written excellent pieces outlining the reasons why unrealistic targets are imposed on fundraisers:

Budgets are based on what’s needed, rather than what the portfolio can realistically deliver;

Excellent performance in one year is “punished”, resulting in a demand to improve by 10% or 20%, regardless of the circumstances;

The ignorance of non-fundraising senior management plays a significant role.

I would add one more reason which I haven’t seen addressed in any fundraising articles/blog posts: middle management which fails to challenge unrealistic goals, instead unreasonably pushing the pressure down to their team.

Harvard Business Review published a very incisive piece on this issue last year, highlighting that “Too few managers have the courage or the wherewithal to do anything but roll over when their boss hands them an astronomically high number.” That’s harsh, but based on experiences earlier in my career, and accounts I’ve heard from others, it’s as equally applicable to the charity sector as it is to the industries that HBR usually covers.

What has this got to do with feminism?

Women are socially conditioned, far more than men, to be acquiescent. Given the over-representation of women in the fundraising workforce, it seems inevitable that this conditioning has affected our organisational cultures.

Fundraising departments often have a culture of “niceness” which generally means that people are pleasant and friendly. There’s nothing wrong with that. However, the flip-side can be an aversion to conflict and healthy debate, which means that issues fester beneath the surface and avoidable problems aren’t anticipated.

It’s therefore probably unfair to place so much of the blame on the middle managers. In order to resist unrealistic goals, they have to fight against their own social conditioning (if they are women), and an organisational culture that’s hostile to open challenge and debate. I know how awkward that feels because I’ve done it. I’ve felt in the past as if sometimes this type of behaviour means I’ve been perceived as a “troublemaker” whereas in other cultures it would be seen as perfectly healthy.

I’d rather take that label, however, than let my team down by giving them goals that I know are impossible. The other benefit of having these experiences, and speaking openly and frankly about them when job-seeking, is that it’s enabled me to find an employer with a healthy and sensible attitude to target-setting.

Fundraisers, we need to resist the culture of bad targets

There are many, many reasons why this culture of unrealistic targets needs to stop:

It’s bad for your own career. Failing to negotiate a realistic number means you’ll never achieve the track record of achieving targets that appears as a requirement on virtually every fundraising job ad that I’ve ever seen.

If you’re a manager, it erodes your authority. A formal job title as “manager” isn’t enough to run a successful team. You need to ensure your employees trust you and believe you have their best interests at heart, as well as the organisation’s – especially if you want to keep your best staff.

Impossible targets encourage unethical behaviour. The aforementioned HBR article explains how these unhealthy cultures led to scandals such as Wells Fargo. We’ve got plenty of our own scandals in the charity sector that are probably caused, at least in part, by a relentless push towards unrealistic income targets. As our sector continues to experience intense (and justified) scrutiny, we need to consider and avoid the unintended consequences of our internal cultures.

It stymies genuine relationship fundraising. Most of us know how fundraising should be done: it’s based on long-term relationships built through trust. It can take many, many years to secure a transformational gift. However, pressure to achieve the big money “now” leads to a desperate scrabbling around for “quick wins” and the long-term important but non-urgent work to build these vital relationships never gets off the ground.

How should we move forward?

I hope that other fundraisers – those who might be drawn towards complaining, and especially the women among us – will be motivated to make a real change.

If you’re a junior fundraiser, scrutinise your target. Think about how you are going to meet it and make a plan. If you are unsure about any part of it, have a discussion with your manager. They should be able to help you understand how you have a reasonable chance of meeting it.

If you are a department manager, make sure you can give your team this confidence. If you can’t, have this same discussion with your manager. This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t challenge your team if you think their proposed figures are too low, but you need to be able to distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable pressure.

When job seeking, ask how targets are set, and whether staff have a say in them. When going for interviews myself, I found this question to be extremely illuminating. One charity avoided answering the question directly. If more fundraisers ask this question, more employers will see that they need to give a good answer in order to compete for talent.

It should be possible to have these discussions while maintaining a high standard of professionalism. After all, reasonable targets are in the best interests of your organisation.

I don’t mean this to give the impression that I think targets are inherently a bad thing. I love having a target! When used correctly, it’s a brilliant motivational tool that can also help a fundraiser track their progress and impact. But there is an important difference between the budgeted figure which finance relies on in order to allocate expenditure, and the “dream” stretch target. Don’t confuse the latter with the former.

The lack of diversity in fundraising is receiving increased attention. Thank goodness: it’s holding back the charity sector in many ways which we probably haven’t fully appreciated.

Fundraising also has a talent shortage which, in my view, goes hand in hand with the diversity problems. It’s incredibly difficult to find good fundraisers, especially at senior level. This also leads to a host of other problems, such as job-hopping; it’s easy to be tempted away to a new charity after a couple of years if you have lots of options. This means that charities rarely benefit from the long-term, sustained relationships that are vital in fundraising.

I’ve met many people, however, who would love the opportunity to work for a charity and change the world, but can’t find a way in (I’ve found other anecdotal evidence of this – for example the comments on Leon Ward’s Guardian article – but no broader evidence; I’d be fascinated to see any studies on this subject if they’re available).

My personal experience

I’m not sure how much has changed since I graduated in 2006, spent a successful year as a street fundraiser, then struggled to find any paid opportunities to progress in the sector. Instead I moved to the private sector for a few years, which gave me the necessary experience to move into a trust fundraising role.

My years in the private sector weren’t wasted: I gained valuable skills such as bid-writing, but it seems a shame that charities’ doors were essentially shut on me. I could have raised a lot more money for charity in those intervening years if given a chance. And I’m a white middle-class woman with a Cambridge degree who had a year’s relevant experience. If I found it difficult, what chance do those without my privilege have?

It seems absolutely mad that we need more talented people, and so many want to work for us, but we make it virtually impossible for them to help us achieve our missions.

Unpaid internships are still too common

There are far too many barriers to entering charities – especially fundraising and comms roles – for anyone without a certain level of financial privilege.

One of the most pervasive forms of discrimination is the prevalence of unpaid internships. What’s more, many paid entry level roles in charity require experience, therefore implying that these internships are a mandatory step.

This is a subject that’s gaining increased attention and there are some signs of improvement: a quick search of Charityjob indicated several enlightened charities advertising internships paying a decent wage.

However, when I turned to the “volunteering” section of the site, my heart sank. Many were genuine volunteering opportunities, but it wasn’t hard to find the less positive examples.

Look at this role description for a “Trust and Statutory Fundraising Intern” from a major charity that you’ve definitely heard of.

Supporting Fundraisers in the development of effective appeals, reports, proposals and updates aimed at Trusts and Statutory bodies, to raise income for the [charity’s] work.

Undertaking qualitative and quantitative secondary research to identify charitable trusts and statutory bodies that might have the potential to support the [charity].

Keeping information up to date on our fundraising database.

Assisting with a mailing programme to donors.

Providing timely feedback and reports to donors, including creation and delivery of thank you messages by mail.

I have hired people to do a virtually identical job, the only substantial difference being that the role I manage pays a salary. What’s the difference between the two positions? Why should one be paid and one not?

I also picked out the following telling phrases from “volunteer” adverts, all with the word “intern” in the job title, and all from relatively well-known charities (my comments follow each one):

“almost all the charity’s paid staff began as interns or on a pro bono basis.”

This is a charity that has intentionally limited its talent pool to those who can afford to work for free.

“our volunteer-based approach helps keep overheads low so that as much funding as possible can go to our projects”

Overheads are a fact of life. If donors won’t pay for them, someone else has to. In this case, it’s the “volunteers” who are bearing the weight of these costs. It doesn’t feel so good to boast about low overheads if you consider that the people in your organisation with the least power are the reason, does it?

“Some weekend and evening work may be required, with Time Off In Lieu (TOIL) available.”

I really, really hope this was a mistake. This statement does not belong on a volunteer ad. And if it was an error, it doesn’t say much about this charity’s commitment to caring for and developing its “volunteers”.

Many of the adverts I read were accompanied by diversity statements. How ironic.

Charities are exploiting the volunteering loophole

Volunteering is a vital and invaluable aspect of charity and should be encouraged. Because of this, I also think it’s impossible to legislate against unpaid internships in the charity sector. But I also think that if we’re honest with ourselves we know the difference: where does the power lie in the relationship? Is the volunteer desperate to get on the first rung of the career ladder? Or is it someone seeking to give back in their spare time?

Ultimately, there’s a very simple test to identify whether a charity “volunteer” should be paid: if you offered them a salary, would they accept it? (I think this hypothetical question has more depth to it than simply considering the offer of money. A salaried position comes with a host of responsibilities that many volunteers would prefer not to take on.)

Unpaid internships are a false economy – and this affects our ability to build relationships with donors

Compare the “Trust and Statutory Fundraising Intern” role to an identical, but paid position. Which is more likely to lead to better donor relationships for the charity, and ultimately more income? The short-term, unpaid post with a revolving door of new starters, all from similarly privileged backgrounds? Or the longer-term, more stable position with an employee who can afford to live independently, can take on more responsibility and is more likely to be loyal to the charity?

What can we do about it?

The diversity problems in fundraising are multi-faceted and complex. I have only addressed one small aspect of it in this blog post. However, there are many practical steps that organisations can take to remove some of the entry barriers and improve the situation for themselves and for the sector. It’s not just the right thing to do ethically; it makes real business sense.

Managers need to commit to finding and developing talented people: these may be young graduates or school-leavers, or older workers making a career transition. The role in question could take the form of an apprenticeship, a paid internship, or simply an entry-level post. Yes, training inexperienced people takes time and effort, but I’ve found that employees appreciate and remember the trust, belief and support provided. Charities that can “grow their own” talent can avoid recruitment agency fees, inspire loyalty and avoid high turnover.

Senior managers need to support their team to do this: finding and developing staff is time-consuming, but must be prioritised, no matter how busy the manager’s workload.

Charity recruitment agencies should do more to find talented, passionate people with the aptitude but not necessarily direct charity experience. There could be a gap in the market for an agency with more diverse candidates that represent the full spectrum of human experience. However, in order to do this the agencies need to know that there’s a business case for it: that charities will take on people who don’t have direct experience and commit to training and supporting them. We need to provide the demand.

Keep arguing for overheads: these are costs that literally keep the lights on, and ensure we can pay all staff fairly. We need to stop the overheads “race to the bottom” and give donors better ways of assessing our effectiveness, such as proper impact measures.

We need a coordinated sector effort to halt unpaid internships. Perhaps sector membership bodies could have a requirement for all organisational members to abandon unpaid internships and commit to finding new talent in more equitable ways.

We struggle to find good talent and have all the disadvantages of a homogeneous workforce, and yet there are countless people out there who would love to work with us if given the opportunity. Are we committed to our missions? Do we really want to change the world? We can’t do it unless we have the right workforce. And we certainly don’t have it yet.